As George Carlin spoke of it, we don’t have a “homelessness” problem, we have a houselessness problem. He thought that a “home” was kind of an abstract concept, and that the people on the street mostly just need shelter.
Heller hits it on the head though. There are probably countless reasons why people are “homeless”.
Yeah but using good sense and smarts wouldn’t give the Orange Dipsh1t anything to scream about. He’s got to make the Democrats in CA look bad ( in his mind anyway) no matter how stupid the things he does actually are. His voters fit those parameters
It is about being homeless. Every time. Every time a community deals w/ the homeless problem by simply providing homes (and various support mechanisms to make that work: things like having a “keeper” to remind them to take their meds, visit their doc, keep the kitchen and bathroom clean etc) it has turned out to be less expensive (to society as a whole) than any other single thing. Every. Time.
Of course the causes of homelessness are myriad, and of course we should address those causes too, but certainly not only because they cause homelessness.
There are six empty houses per each homeless people in the U.S. Many of these are (or were) owned by banks that foreclosed on properties after the 2007 – 2008 meltdown; often the banks didn’t have the proper paperwork but the judges just shoved them through.
Excellent cartoon, spot on. There are no simple solutions to complex questions. It has always struck me that this country, which professes to be a Christian nation (“Whatever ye do for the least of these, so you do for me.”), falls pretty short facing a reality like this. And if you’ve never been broke and homeless you simply can’t imagine what it is like for these people. Forcing them into the shadows is not the answer, but I don’t have the answer either. Just that a little compassion goes a long way.
First give people homes (real ones)… Sceptics will argue that giving homes to homeless people is a recipe for disaster. Aren’t we just subsidising addiction? Won’t we end up with huge bills when it all goes wrong? Don’t people need an incentive to get their lives back on track and engage in services?
The evidence from Finland – as well as numerous other pilot schemes across the world – shows the opposite is true. When people are given homes, homelessness is radically reduced, engagement in support services goes up and recovery rates from addiction are comparable to a “treatment first” approach. Even more impressive is that there are overall savings for government, as people’s use of emergency health services and the criminal justice system is lessened.
Wlly Blly over 4 years ago
As George Carlin spoke of it, we don’t have a “homelessness” problem, we have a houselessness problem. He thought that a “home” was kind of an abstract concept, and that the people on the street mostly just need shelter.
Heller hits it on the head though. There are probably countless reasons why people are “homeless”.
JohnHarry Premium Member over 4 years ago
Yeah but using good sense and smarts wouldn’t give the Orange Dipsh1t anything to scream about. He’s got to make the Democrats in CA look bad ( in his mind anyway) no matter how stupid the things he does actually are. His voters fit those parameters
Concretionist over 4 years ago
It is about being homeless. Every time. Every time a community deals w/ the homeless problem by simply providing homes (and various support mechanisms to make that work: things like having a “keeper” to remind them to take their meds, visit their doc, keep the kitchen and bathroom clean etc) it has turned out to be less expensive (to society as a whole) than any other single thing. Every. Time.
Of course the causes of homelessness are myriad, and of course we should address those causes too, but certainly not only because they cause homelessness.
Ontman over 4 years ago
Mr. Heller makes a good, much unrealized point.
Nantucket Premium Member over 4 years ago
There are six empty houses per each homeless people in the U.S. Many of these are (or were) owned by banks that foreclosed on properties after the 2007 – 2008 meltdown; often the banks didn’t have the proper paperwork but the judges just shoved them through.
braindead Premium Member over 4 years ago
Even if it were only about homelessness, what would be different?
Radish the wordsmith over 4 years ago
Its going to get worse before it gets better, Republicans do nothing except cut benefits for the poor so the rich can get tax breaks.
mitchkeos Premium Member over 4 years ago
Excellent cartoon, spot on. There are no simple solutions to complex questions. It has always struck me that this country, which professes to be a Christian nation (“Whatever ye do for the least of these, so you do for me.”), falls pretty short facing a reality like this. And if you’ve never been broke and homeless you simply can’t imagine what it is like for these people. Forcing them into the shadows is not the answer, but I don’t have the answer either. Just that a little compassion goes a long way.
martens over 4 years ago
First give people homes (real ones)… Sceptics will argue that giving homes to homeless people is a recipe for disaster. Aren’t we just subsidising addiction? Won’t we end up with huge bills when it all goes wrong? Don’t people need an incentive to get their lives back on track and engage in services?
The evidence from Finland – as well as numerous other pilot schemes across the world – shows the opposite is true. When people are given homes, homelessness is radically reduced, engagement in support services goes up and recovery rates from addiction are comparable to a “treatment first” approach. Even more impressive is that there are overall savings for government, as people’s use of emergency health services and the criminal justice system is lessened.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/finland-homelessness-rough-sleepers-britain
edward thomas Premium Member over 4 years ago
And if we give them all homes, we’ll cover TWO bases: Water pollution will be cleared up immediately!/s